Gotta counter the Lemmygrad propaganda going on here lately.
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
69 points (94.8% liked)
Slop.
772 readers
516 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
why are people subscribing to ideologies invested in beef literally generations removed from their context
as i type that i realize i could just be ignorant - is there any actual grievance between anarchists and socialists that's older than like, the 20th century revolutions?
like, let's say you found enough class consciousness in the west in 2026 (lmfao but roll with it) such that ancoms and socialists began working together again, is there even any likelihood that "history repeats itself" in terms of that conflict resurfacing?
anarchy kinda is closer to how i'd like to see things be, it feels like you could make a pretty cool swiss cheese'd world where colonial nations are destroyed and replaced with a socialism and ancom model that has the benefit of over a century of hindsight to work out past failures and adapt to culture. Like, i'd love to see a socialist state permit areas where ancoms reign, seeing what can be made to work in that and adapt the state around it to creating processes to accellerate their propagation.
but that's me being like "i like ancom more in my heart but getting there doesn't feel possible at scale without some interstitial something with the centralization to fight Empire".
like, socialists and ancoms should be getting along and not relitigating historical events that happened outside of their culture, time, and place. there's probably like, fruitful lasting symbiosis that can be achieved?
but if i'm being foolish let me know and accept my apology please
it's even more annoying when they do the whole "us" "we" "our" bullshit when talking about these projects, as if they contributed anything other than steal valor from movements they barely discovered 3 years ago on /r/politicalcompassmemes
I've seen anarchists do a lot of fucked up things to communists in "coalition spaces."
I won't work with anarchists anymore because of how often "anarchism" is just a cover for reactionaries who spend more time trying to keep out "tankies" than oppose capitalism
It's because a lot of people like to larp but they don't want to admit it, so they do this stuff instead. Also it makes them feel clever, like they've figured something out others haven't - it's like when libs come in and "you guys are leftists? But don't you know communism is when no iPhone?"
A lot of the conflict dates back to Marx personally. He was pressed because Proudhon cited his college rival when he wrote "The Philosophy of Poverty." so Marx wrote a book length review titled "The Poverty of Philosophy." Then because Marx had issues with Proudhon he naturally also had issues with Bakunin, thus leading to their constant arguments. Then when Bakunin was running late for the International – he stopped to fight nationalists in Poland – Marx debated the only anarchists who made it – they didn't do well. Afterwards Marx called to have Bakunin removed and also to move the International to New York. This led to Bakunin forming his own International.
Then once the old guard died you had Kropotikin who introduced Anarcho-Communism, and rumor has it that Lenin adored the guy. Gave him a house Named a city after him. Temporarily allowed anarchists to come out of hiding just for the guy's funeral. Named a mountain range after him. But Lenin still had beef with the anarcho-individualist like Proudhon and Bakunin (Which would probably make them proud given they defined their own success based on how reactionary future leftists will think of them.). So a lot of young leftists read the State and Revolution without context and assume that there's this huge feud between us. But truthfully, we're all communists, we just disagree on whether or not cops should exist.
Worth noting that both Proudhon and Bakunin had... another problem with Marx on a both more and less personal level.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/1847/jews.htm
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zoe-baker-bakunin-was-a-racist
Good thing I'm an anarchist then. Would be pretty embarrassing to have to make excuses for long dead reactionaries rather than learning from their mistakes and reading theory written in the past century.
Yes, of course. I didn't mean to imply that that was an attack on you (or on anarchism), I just wanted to note what was likely a source of personal animosity between these individuals that also worsened the conflicts between them.
Ah, I see. I guess I'm used to mote animosity. I won't excuse their blatant bigotry, and the lack of intersectionality has obviously set movements back. But it also doesn't negate his work much in the same way that Marx "overlooking" (Despising) the permanent underclass doesn't make his work obsolete. And that's actually the only reason I bring up Bakunin anymore. There are countless authors who have rewritten and evolved anarchism to the point where the works of mutualists no longer make sense to cite. Which is exactly what Bakunin tried to emphasize in much of his work. Even the most radical of the past are nothing but reactionary by future standards.
100%. The world is big enough, I don't see what all the fighting's about.